
S P EECH 


OF 


HON. JOSEPH SIMON, 


OP' OREGON, 






IN TIIE 


SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1900. 



WASHINGTON. 

1900. 























I 



























Cor.g. Record Off.] 

10 Ja.’ 01 

' I 






















SPEECH 


OF 

PI OX. JOSEPH 


SIMON. 


The Senate having under consideration the resolution reported from the 
Committee on Privileges and Elections declaring that Hon. Matthew Quay 
is not entitled to a seat as Senator from the State of Pennsylvania— 

Mr. SIMON said: 

Mr. President: I ask for the reading of tlie resolution re¬ 
ported from the Committee on Privileges and Elections. 

The Secretary read the resolution, as follows: 

Resolved , That the Hon. Matthew S. Quay is not entitled to take his seat 
in this body as a Senator from the State of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Montana 
[Mr. Carter] on yesterday, in the discussion of this resolution 
and in explanation of his intention to vote to seat Mr. Quay, not¬ 
withstanding the fact that but two years ago, upon a much 
stronger case, he had refused to vote to seat Mr. Corbett, lias this 
to say in justification of his course: 

Mr. Corbett was appointed by the governor of Oregon to fill the vacancy 
occasioned by the expiration of the term of Senator John H. Mitchell on the 
4th of March. 1897. The legislature of Oregon had failed to elect, and its fail¬ 
ure was due to the inability of the body to organize. Mr. Mitchell had made 
a vigorous campaign for reelection before the people of Oregon, and they had 
elected a majority of the legislature favorable to his return to the Senate. 
The will of the people of that State as expressed in their representation in 
the legislature could only have been defeated by depriving the members of 
the legislature of the privilege of casting their votes and registering the 
popular will as expressed at the polls on election day. That case has been 
decided. Mr. Corbett was denied a seat in this Chamber. My vote was reg¬ 
istered against him. and it would be registered against him now on the same 
state of facts. 

By a course of conduct which was revolutionary in its nature the legisla¬ 
ture' was kept from perfecting an organization until its period of possible ex¬ 
istence expired by limitation. It was believed by many members of the Sen¬ 
ate that Mr. Corbett was the inspiring force in that revolutionary scheme, 
and. acting upon that belief, votes were influenced, cast, and recorded against 
him. 

Exercising the unquestionable right to look beyond the credentials and 
the authority issuing them to the manner in which they were obtained by 
the applicant for a seat, a large number of Senators, to my knowledge, my¬ 
self included, voted against seating Mr. Corbett solely on the ground that he 
should not be admitted to the Senate as the culmination of a conspiracy to 
cripple and demoralize the government of his State. 

The charge is distinctly made here by the senior Senator from 
Montana that when he voted on the Corbett case he believed that 
Mr. Corbett had corrupted the members of the Oregon legislature, 
prevented an organization of the house, and defeated the return 
of Mr. Mitchell, who was the choice of the people of the State of 
Oregon for Senator from that State. 

4173 


3 



4 


Mr. President, it liad not been my purpose to discuss this ques¬ 
tion. I intended to content myself with casting my vote in ac¬ 
cordance with my convictions. I can not, however, permit this 
unjust and untrue charge, made by the distinguished Senator 
from Montana, nor the assertion made by the junior Senator from 
Nevada some days since, that Mr. Corbett was responsible for 
the demoralization of the Oregon legislature, to remain unchal¬ 
lenged. 

I was a member of that legislature, and I believe that I am fa¬ 
miliar with the circumstances and causes that led up to the fail¬ 
ure of the house of representatives to organize and the failure of 
the legislature to elect a Senator, and I desire to say now, without 
qualification, that Mr. Corbett was in no way responsible for 
either the failure of the house to organize or the failure of the 
legislature to elect a Senator, 

In connection with this statement I wish to add that Mr. Cor¬ 
bett was not a candidate for election to the Senate; neither had he 
any inclination in that direction; nor had he any desire to prevent 
the organization of the house. On the contrary, as a. citizen of 
that State and largely interested in its affairs and in its material 
development and progress, he was particularly anxious that the 
legislature should organize and that certain legislation of a reme¬ 
dial and economic character that was in contemplation then under 
discussion in the public press, should be enacted, and also that a 
Senator in line with the policy of the incoming Administration 
should be elected. 

The assertion of the senior Senator from Montana that Mr. 
Mitchell was the choice of the people of Oregon for reelection, 
and that at the election for members of the legislature of 1897 Mr. 
Mitchell had succeeded in bringing about the election of a large 
majority of the members that were favorable to his return to the 
Senate is not borne out by the facts, and is contrary to what I 
understand the truth to be. The very best evidence of my asser¬ 
tion is the fact that at no meeting of the joint convention that Mr. 
Mitchell's friends held for the purpose of endeavoring to secure 
his return to the Senate was there everpresent a sufficient number 
of members to bring about such election. The effort was made 
and persisted in by Mr. Mitchell from the very commencement of 
the session until its close to secure a majority of the members 
of the legislature who would vote for the return of Mr. Mitchell 
to the Senate; but in his efforts to accomplish this he met with 
no success. 

The failure of the house to organize is attributable to Mr. Mitch¬ 
ell, and to him alone. Not that Mr. Mitchell was averse to or not 
inclined to have the house organize. On the contrary, he was de¬ 
sirous of securing an organization of the house, but such organi¬ 
zation, if accomplished, must be consistent with and in his inter¬ 
est. The cause of the failure of the house to organize was 
because of a strife over the election of speaker and a contest over 
some proposed radical legislation that the members of the house 
were almost evenly divided upon, and above all on account of di¬ 
vision on the financial question. The membership of the house 
consisted of Republicans, Silver Republicans, Democrats, and 
Populists. The Republicans were slightly in the majority, but 
they did not have the necessary two-thirds required by the consti¬ 
tution to form a quorum. It was claimed that Mr. Mitchell had 
promised his support to two of the leading candidates for speaker, 
4178 


5 


one a Gold Standard Republican and the other a Silver Repub¬ 
lican, and both of them insisted upon the fulfillment of the pledge 
they claimed to have had from him. This was the real cause of 
the failure of the house to organize, and was what brought about 
Mr. Mitchell’s defeat. 

Mr. Mitchell had been up to the time of the election of President 
McKinley an ardent advocate of the free coinage of silver. He 
spoke for free silver in season and out of season and in Congress 
and out of Congress. Upon the adoption of the St. Louis plat¬ 
form and the consequent election of McKinley, and the election 
of a Republican legislature in Oregon that was very largely in 
favor of the gold standard, Mr. Mitchell discovered that he was in 
a very peculiar and embarrassing position, and from the time of 
the November election of 1896 until the present hour no one has 
ever been able to get a public expression from Mr. Mitchell as to 
how he stands upon the financial question. The Silver Republic¬ 
ans, Democrats, and Populists that comprised one-half the mem¬ 
bership of the house, all of whom believed in the free coinage of 
silver, feared that owing to his support of McKinley, and there¬ 
fore incidentally of the St. Louis platform, that Mr. Mitchell had 
abandoned his views upon the silver question, and many of the 
Gold-Standard Republicans, because of his theretofore well-known 
views upon the silver question and of his refusal or failure to give 
any public expression upon the subject, had no confidence in his 
conversion to the gold standard and distrusted the intimations 
given out by his friends and adherents that Mr. Mitchell would no 
longer advocate the free coinage of silver and would stand upon 
the St. Louis platform and advocate the financial policy of the 
Republican party if reelected to the Senate. Neither the advo¬ 
cates of free silver nor the advocates of the gold standard were 
satisfied, and Mr. Mitchell, seeking to ride two horses, fell between 
them and was lost. 

Mr. Mitchell had always had more or less connection and polit¬ 
ical fellowship with those who oppose the policy of the Republican 
party, and on at least one occasion when elected to the Senate it 
was made possible only by Democratic votes. Because of this 
friendly relation it was believed by many Republican members 
that the claim made by those in opposition to the Republicans, 
that Mr. Mitchell had promised to aid them in securing certain 
legislation which was desired by them and opposed to the policy 
of the Republican party, was not altogether without merit. At 
any rate, because of the division of the members of the house 
over the election of speaker, division upon the financial question, 
and fear of the passage of legislation upon which there was great 
division, the house failed to organize. Under the constitution of 
the State a quorum of each house consists of two-thirds of the 
members elected thereto. When the opposition to Mr. Mitchell 
became convinced that it was his purpose to ignore the promises 
claimed to have been made to them respecting the election of a 
speaker and in regard to the legislation desired, they concluded 
that they would delay the organization of the house so as to defer 
the election of Senator one week. 

There was no purpose at that time of preventing an organiza¬ 
tion of the house; simply a desire to gain time in which to enforce 
compliance with the promises made. The temporary organization 
of the house was not effected in the interest of Mr. Mitchell, but 
in opposition to him, and after Mr. Mitchell’s friends discovered 
4178 


6 


that they were unable to secure a quorum or even a majority of 
the members of the house to attend its sessions and do his bidding 1 , 
they determined, by high-handed and revolutionary methods, 
to usurp the organization and effect a permanent organization 
not in succession to but in spite of and ignoring the temporary 
organization that had been lawfully effected. When this course 
was outlined and adopted, it incensed the other members of the 
house, and they refused to be bound by such revolutionary 
methods, and refused to cooperate with those members who were 
willing to do Mr. Mitchell’s bidding, and refused to attend the 
sessions of the house. This condition continued until feeling be¬ 
tween the rival parties became very bitter and intense, and it 
became apparent that no organization of the house could be effected, 
and after wasting several weeks in a vain attempt to arrive at an 
understanding the members dispersed and returned to their homes. 

I deny the imputation that Mr. Corbett contributed money to 
bring about or that lie in any way brought about the conditions I 
have detailed. He had no interest or purpose in so doing. 1 have 
no hesitation in asserting that Mr. Corbett had no part whatever 
in bringing about the failure of the house to organize, and for the 
reasons stated such failure is to be attributed to Mr. Mitchell, and 
to him alone, and whatever demoralization there was of the legis¬ 
lature was caused by Mr. Mitchell, and not by Mr. Corbett. 

I want also to assert in the most positive manner that if there 
was any improper or corrupt methods adopted or used in connec¬ 
tion with the failure of the legislature to organize or the failure 
to elect a Senator Mr. Corbett was not directly or indirectly con¬ 
nected therewith or responsible therefor. 

Mr. President, I regret the necessity for discussing this case or 
making this statement, but I could not remain silent after hearing 
the charges against Mr. Corbett, so earnestly made by Senators, 
who I have no doubt believed them to be true, but have been mis¬ 
led and deceived. Mr. Corbett is one of the foremost men of the 
Northwest. He is a gentleman of high moral character and of the 
strictest integrity. He is conscientious in the discharge of every 
duty required of him. He is high minded and honorable, and would 
scorn to do an unworthy act. No one in Oregon has done more 
toward the upbuilding and bringing about the material develop¬ 
ment of that State than he. No one has contributed more to chari¬ 
table and educational purposes than he, and no one stands higher 
in the estimation of the people of that State than does Mr. Corbett. 
No one knowing him will believe the charges that have been pub¬ 
licly made on the floor of the Senate against him. 

Mr. President, in addition to this statement, which I felt in duty 
bound to make in justice to Mr. Corbett, I shall now submit a few 
observations concerning the right of Mr. Quay to a seat in the 
Senate upon the appointment of Governor Stone, of Pennsylvania. 

I take it for granted that the facts of this case are so well under¬ 
stood that a statement of them is unnecessary. The Constitution 
Xirovides that— 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from 
each State, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years. 

The Senate is a body which represents the States, and the equal¬ 
ity of the States, whether large or small, is maintained by allot¬ 
ting to each equal representation. As vacancies were liable to 
occur during the recess of the legislatures of the States, in order 
to secure continuous, full, and equal representation to all of 
4178 


7 


them, it became necessary for the Constitution to make provi¬ 
sion for filling vacancies; otherwise a State, or States, might be 
deprived of its representation in whole or in part during such 
recess, when interests of vital importance to the States and th& 
highest moment to the National Government demanded the pres¬ 
ence of a full quota of Senators. To provide for such contingency 
the framers of the Constitution formulated this clause: 

If vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the 
legislature of any State, the executive thereof may make temporary appoint¬ 
ments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such 
vacancies. 

This clause was intended solely to preserve the representation 
of the States by providing a method for filling vacancies occurring 
in the Senatorial office during the recess of their legislatures by 
temporary appointments of the executives of the States. 1 can 
readily agree with those who argue for the seating of Mr. Quay, 
that the thought uppermost in the mind of the Convention was the 
method to be devised for filling vacancies which were liable to 
occur during the interim between the sessions of the legislatures 
as a means of preserving representation among the States, and 
that, for the purposes of the case, vacancies'were treated as given 
facts; and how to fill them and by whom when the legislatures of 
the States were not in session, so that the particular States affected 
by such vacancies should not be deprived of any part of their rep¬ 
resentation, was the question which engaged the attention of the 
Convention; and while there is force in the argument of those 
who oppose this contention, I should, if this were an original ques¬ 
tion and free from its otherwise quasi-judicial determination by 
the Senate, agree with the contention that, in framing this clause, 
the Convention was not aiming to specify the particular cases 
which constituted a vacancy, but to provide a method for filling 
all vacancies, however occurring, between the sessions of the legis¬ 
lature, to the end that full and equal representation should be pre¬ 
served to each State. 

A distinguished member of this body, in an earlier discussion of 
the subject, said: 

The Constitution abhors a vacancy in the Senate as much as nature abhors 
a vacuum. 

The effect of vacancies in office, if long continued, is to impair 
the powers and retard the operation of government. They pro¬ 
duce, so to speak, a hiatus which disturbs the orderly administra¬ 
tion of public affairs unless speedily filled. They are regarded by 
lawgivers as an evil so injurious to the body politic that all gov¬ 
ernments provide in their constitutions or laws methods for 
promptly filling them. Nor is it of anv consecmence how the 
vacancies occur, whether by resignation, official delinquency, or 
otherwise, the evils resulting from them are just the same, and 
are only to be averted by promptly i>roviding them with incum¬ 
bents. 

The framers of the Constitution well understood that vacancies 
could not exist in the Senate for any length of time without im¬ 
pairing the right of representation and entailing its consequent 
evils before the States and nation. Hence, when the convention 
came to frame the clause under consideration, the cardinal idea 
in their mind was not how vacancies might occur, but how they 
should provide a method for filling them during the recess of 
the legislature, and by whom such vacancies should be filled, so 
4178 


8 


that no State should he deprived for any considerable length of 
time of its full and equal representation in the Senate. As the 
Senators were chosen by the legislatures of the States, they pro¬ 
vided, if the Senatorial office became vacant when the legislature 
was not in session, that the governor might fill it by temporary 
appointment until its next session. In this way and by this con¬ 
struction full and equal representation is secured continuously to 
the States, which is manifestly the chief object of this clause. 
Although I have always entertained this view of the clause of the 
Constitution under discussion, and therefore believed that Mr. 
Corbett was clearly entitled to a seat as a member of the Senate 
under the appointment of the governor of Oregon, I find that this 
view is not in harmony with the construction given this clause of 
the Constitution by the Senate. 

As was shown by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, 
who argued in favor of the resolution now under consideration, 
during a period of seventy-five years the Senate has never admit¬ 
ted the appointee of a governor when the legislature has had an 
opportunity to elect and failed to do so. 

Omitting consideration of the earlier cases and coming down to 
the cases still fresh in our recollection, we find that in the Mantle 
case the Senate expressly declared that where the legislature of a 
State has had an opportunity to elect and failed to do so, in con¬ 
sequence of which a vacancy exists, the governor is not author¬ 
ized to fill it by a temporary appointment. In the Corbett case 
the Senate by a more decisive vote carried the principle still fur¬ 
ther, and held that where a legislature failed to organize and by 
reason thereof had no opportunity to elect a Senator, in conse¬ 
quence of which a vacancy occurred, there was no such material 
difference in the facts of the two cases that a like principle should 
not govern them, and declined to recognize the appointment of 
the governor and refused to seat Mr. Corbett. 

In the Corbett case, not only was the legislature not in session 
when the vacancy happened, but the legislature had not been able 
to organize, and therefore was unable to perform its constitutional 
duty. 

Mr. Quay’s case is not nearly so strong upon its facts as either the 
Mantle case or the Corbett case, as the vacancy in his case occurred 
during a session of the legislature, and for a long period after the 
vacancy occurred this legislature was in session endeavoring to 
elect a Senator. If in the Corbett case, where the legislature had 
never organized and of course could not be and was not in session 
when the vacancy occurred, the appointment of the governor 
would not be recognized by the Senate, how, then, in the Quay 
case, where the legislature was in session when the vacancy oc¬ 
curred, and the constitution of that State requires the governor 
to convene the legislature for the purpose of filling any vacancy 
existing in its representation in the Senate, can it be consistently 
contended that the appointment of the governor of Pennsylvania 
should be respected and Mr. Quay given liis seat, when Mr. Cor¬ 
bett, upon a much stronger case only two years before that time, 
was denied a seat? Mr. Quay was a member of this body when 
the Corbett case was under discussion, and he evidently concluded 
that the governor had no right to appoint a Senator in that case. 

An examination of the record in the Corbett case discloses the 
fact that when the vote was taken upon the question of seating 
Mr. Corbett Mr. Quay was paired in opposition thereto. If the 
unbroken line of precedents during a period of seventy-five years 
4178 


9 


is now to be cast aside and Mr. Quay is to be given a seat in this 
body, how will it be possible for the Senate to atone for the great 
wrong done Mr. Corbett, in which wrong Mr. Quay was an active 
participant? Or is it true, as contended for by some of the sup- 
porters of Mr. Quay, that in the consideration of future cases in¬ 
volving the question of the right of a governor to appoint to a 
vacant seat in the Senate each case is to be determined upon the 
personality of the appointee? It seems to me, upon every principle 
of justice, Mr. Quay ought to be estopped from claiming the ben¬ 
efit of the rule of construction invoked by Mr. Corbett, which 
would now secure to him (Mr. Quay) a seat in the Senate upon a 
less meritorious state of facts, when he did not see his way clear 
to sustain the rule by voting for Mr. Corbett’s admission. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Calendar under Rule 
VIII is in order. 

Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, with the permission of the Sen¬ 
ate I should be glad, by unanimous consent, to be granted a mo¬ 
ment to say a word in reply to the observations of the Senator 
from Oregon [Mr. Simon] . 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, the 
Senator will proceed. The Chair hears no objection. 

Mr. CAR j. ER. Mr. President, the statements made by me yes¬ 
terday with reference to the Corbett case were not made with a 
view to any assault upon Mr. Corbett personally, nor were they 
actuated by any desire to become intermingled with the politics of 
the State of Oregon. 

I assigned as a reason for the vote least against Mr. Corbett the 
belief then entertained by me, and now entertained by me, that 
the proceeding which resulted in the appointment of Mr. Corbett 
to a seat in the Senate was a revolutionary proceeding to which 
he was a party. 

The legislature of Oregon was elected after a very spirited cam¬ 
paign, during which John H. Mitchell, then a Senator, was a 
candidate for reelection. Mr. Mitchell made a campaign of that 
State as a candidate for reelection. It appears by the record un¬ 
challenged that the legislature elected was a Republican legisla¬ 
ture, a legislature belonging to the party to which Mr. Mitchell 
belonged. That legislature sought to organize. A majority of 
its members in caucus made Mr. Mitchell the caucus nominee by 
a unanimous vote, the name of no other person being presented 
to the Republicans of that legislature as a candidate for Senator. 

Mr. Brownell, who was president of the joint assembly of the 
State, in a letter dated Oregon City, Oreg., March 10, 1897, di¬ 
rected to “The Honorable the Chairman of the Committee on 
Privileges and Elections, United States Senate,” outlines in such 
clear and lucid language what occurred that, with the permission 
of the Senate, I will ask the Secretary to read the letter as a part of 
my remarks. 

* * * * * * * 

Mr. President, this letter just read sets forth in narrative form 
about what occurred in the State of Oregon in connection with 
the attempted election of a Senator. It appears from the state¬ 
ment of the president of the joint assembly that Mr. Mitchell did 
receive a caucus nomination; that he was the only candidate of 
his party before the legislature, and that if a vote had been taken 
he would have been elected. 

The Senator from Oregon states that Mr. Mitchell himself tended 
4178 


10 


to demoralize the legislature and prevent an election. The fact, 
as set forth by the president of the joint assembly, seems to be 
that in the preliminary organization Mr. Mitchell's candidate was 
defeated, but the Mitchell members came forward the next day, 
and then it happened that Davis, who had been elected by the op¬ 
ponents of Mitchell as temporary chairman, refused to entertain 
a motion, refused to take the oath of office, refused to administer 
to any member of the legislature his oath, and stood there occu¬ 
pying the chair for the purpose of paralyzing the proceedings, and 
for that purpose only. Every member of the legislature, it seems, 
who was in favor of the election of John H. Mitchell to the Sen¬ 
ate took the oath of office before the chief justice, those in the 
Senate having the oath administered in the orderly manner, and 
were ever and always ready to participate in proceedings looking 
to the election of a Senator. 

The president of the joint assembly in this letter states that the 
opposition to the organization found its source and power in un¬ 
limited quantities of money; that the governor of the State and 
Henry W. Corbett were in "the combination to prevent the elec¬ 
tion; that Mr. Mitchell went to this opposition and said, “Any 
good Republican in this State will answer, and I will withdraw;” 
whereupon the reply came, so the story goes as related by this 
man, concerning whose veracity no one has raised a question, 
“You must elect Henry W. Corbett to the Senate, and Mr. 
Bourne,” who had voted for and supported Mr. Bryan, “shall be 
elected speaker of the House. " 

I can not reconcile the statement of the Senator from Oregon, 
that Mr. Mitchell persistently refused to attempt to harmonize or 
bring about results, with this letter signed bjHiim and forwarded 
to the members of the caucus which had nominated him. I read 
from the letter in part, signed by Mr. Mitchell: 

The Republican party is infinitely greater than any one man. Its inter¬ 
ests are paramount to those of any one individual. It is your duty to elect a 
Republican Senator, if in your power; and while, as your nominee, I person¬ 
al^ am ready and willing, as you all know, to stand by you and with you for 
the integrity of party organization and the maintenance and perpetuity of 
the rule of the majority, still I desire to say to you now, in this public man¬ 
ner, that while I believe that the minority should not be permitted to dictate 
to the majority, and that there is now a principle involved in this contest 
which is infinitely greater than the interests of any one individual, yet, as I 
have repeatedly stated to each of you individually during the last thirty 
days, I do not claim to control your judgment or assume any right to direct * 
your forces. Therefore, whenever you can see your way clear to choose a 
Republican Senator other than myself, then you must not for one moment 
permit the fact of my nomination or of my candidacy to stand in the way. 

In other words, I am in your hands. Yon have made me your nominee; do 
with me as you please and I will be content. Do your whole duty to the Re¬ 
publican party, the State of Oregon, and the nation. Y r ou know full well the 
character of the combination against you, and the influences through which 
it found its origin and by which it has been maintained. Exercise your best 
judgment, keeping steadily in view the best interests not only of the Repub¬ 
lican party but of the State and nation. 

Thanking you and each of you most cordially for the unfaltering support 
you have given me, I am, with great respect, etc. 

Later, on the 22d of February, Mr. Mitchell sent another letter 
addressed to Hon. Samuel Hughes, chairman of the Republican 
conference, in which he practically withdraws from the Sena¬ 
torial fight to the end that some person not directly or personally 
offensive to this opposition may be elected. It is stated in the 
communication I hat Mr. Corbett could not have obtained a cor¬ 
poral's guard of the votes in that legislature or the most trifling 
per cent of the vote of the people of Oregon at the polls. It was 
4178 


4 


11 




manifest that Corbett’s appointment was the thing sought, and 
that this disruption and disorganization of the legislature was in¬ 
tended to coutinue until the legislature adjourned, and that then 
Mr. Corbett should be given the seat by the appointment of the 
governor. The appointment was made, and the Senate refused to 
ratify the bargain. That is the simple statement according to the 
manner in which it appears in the record as made up and certified 
to by the president of the joint assembly. 

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I do not wish to take up the time 
of the Senate in rediscussing the Oregon case. I think a very 
great wrong was committed when the Senate refused to seat Mr. 
Corbett, and if I could secure a reversal of that vote by this Sen¬ 
ate, although it would be impossible for Mr. Corbett thereby to 
obtain a seat here, I should be content. I can not allow some of 
the statements made by my distinguished friend the Senator from 
Montana- 

Mr. HOAR. May I ask the Senator one question before he passes 
from that sentence? Then I understand him to say that but for 
the precedent in the Corbett case he-would be prepared now to 
affirm the authority of the governor as exercised in this case? 

Mr. SIMON. I would. 

Mr. HOAR. It is not any previous precedent, but that single 
one? 

Mr. SIMON. I have always been of the same impression that 
the Senator from Massachusetts has—that any vacancy, no mat¬ 
ter how it existed, might be filled by the governor's appointment; 
but I contend that, the Senate having determined that question 
otherwise, it would be wrong now, in view of having refused to 
seat Mr. Mantle and Mr. Corbett, and in view of the fact that the 
precedents have been in that direction for seventy-five years, to 
now again reverse that rule and seat Mr. Quay. That is as far as 
I care to go in answering the question of the Senator from Mas¬ 
sachusetts. 

I wish to answer some of the suggestions made by the distin¬ 
guished Senator from Montana. My friend lives in a very peculiar 
country, and we have all heard more or less about the conditions 
in Montana and about Senatorial elections in that State, and I 
think many of his ideas are exaggerated, and are obtained by 
reason of what is learned from Montana politics. It has been 
generally charged, and to some extent believed, that in an elec¬ 
tion held in that State not very long ago—not in ancient times— 
moneys were used to corrupt the legislature; and if reports do the 
successful candidate no injustice, he separated himself from about 
$800,000. How true that is I do not know, but it is generally 
believed in the Western country that there is more or less truth 
in the rumors that have become current on the subject. I do not 
say that with any desire to cast reflection upon anyone. I have 
no knowledge upon the subject, and refer to this simply for the 
purpose of indicating how the views of the distinguished Senator 
from Montana may have become warped. He has been making 
exaggerated charges of corruption and bribery, and laying them 
to the door of Mr. Corbett. 

I wish to deny again, emphatically, that Mr. Corbett was a can¬ 
didate for the Senate. During the 'legislature of 1897 he had no 
idea of becoming a candidate for the Senate. He had no desire 
to be a candidate. It was his purpose and his desire that some 
gold-standard Republican should be elected other than himself. 

4178 



12 




I speak from personal knowledge of the matter. What the Sen¬ 
ator from Montana says he undoubtedly believes to be true, but 
he has been deceived and misled; and because he has been de¬ 
ceived and misled he has done Mr. Corbett a great injustice. 

Now, I was very much entertained by the letter I just heard 
read, signed by my distinguished friend the senator from Clack¬ 
amas County, Hon. George C. Brownell. I say this, calling him 
my friend, in all seriousness. The letter was drafted and prepared 
by Senator Mitchell. It bears the earmarks of Senator Mitchell. 
It was generally known and understood in Oregon that Senator 
Mitchell had prepared a letter or communication of this charac¬ 
ter, which was to be forwarded to the United States Senate. Up 
to this time I had not seen it or heard it read, and did not know 
its contents, and I am very much entertained and amused by 
what I learn from this letter. 

What appears in the letter is all from the standpoint of Senator 
Mitchell, and I dissent from very many of the statements that 
are therein contained. 

So far as the letter is concerned and so far as the Senator from 
Clackamas is concerned, I want to say this: If he, Senator Brown¬ 
ell, did at that time intend to cast any aspersions or reflections 
upon me, he has amply repaired that wrong. In the legislature 
of 1898. when I had the honor to be elected a member of this body, 
if it is an honor, and I presume it is, Senator Brownell placed me 
in nomination, and in the speech which he made eulogizing my 
private and public virtues it was apparent that in his judgment 
at least I was the man and the only man in Oregon who was fit 
for this important position. 

As I said, this letter was written by Senator Mitchell, and of 
course was written in his interest and from his standpoint, and 
many of the statements made there can be taken with a grain of 
allowance, and perhaps it may be contended that some of the 
statements. I have made here should also be taken with a grain of 
allowance. 1 have endeavored to state them fairly and truthfully, 
but my interest in this matter may have misled me and may have 
induced me to exaggerate or rather give undue importance to some 
of them. I do not think that is true. I have endeavored to be 
fair and candid and to state only the facts as I understood them 
to be. 

Mr. Mitchell is not truthful in his letter—and I might as well 
refer to it as the Mitchell letter, because it is the Mitchell letter— 
when he says he was willing to retire from the Senatorial contest. 
It is true that he wrote the letters referred to, but these letters 
had strings upon them. It was well understood by members of 
the legislature that those letters were to go to the Republican 
caucus; that they were to be circulated for the purpose of inducing 
recalcitrant and weak-kneed members of the legislature, who were 
not disposed to unite in the election of Mitchell, to become mem¬ 
bers of the joint assembly and thereby bring about the election of 
Mr. Mitchell. It was at no time intended by Mr. Mitchell in good 
faith to retire from the Senatorial contest, and when he could 
succeed in inducing the hold-out Republican members to enter 
the joint assembly 7 the letters of withdrawal would have accom¬ 
plished their purpose and would then be withdrawn. 

It appears from the letter that a Republican caucus was held at 
which there were present more than a majority of the Republican 
members of the legislature. I beg to disagree with that state¬ 
ment. It is not consistent with the facts. If it were true, there 
4173 


13 


would have been no difficulty in bringing about the election of 
Mr. Mitchell. He would have been elected, because there were 
votes enough there, according to his claim, to elect him. In the 
first place, the charge was made publicly and believed to be true 
that names were added to the caucus roll without the consent of 
the parties whose names were appended to the call. The caucus 
call contained the names of several members who publicly de¬ 
clared that they had not signed the call and had not Intended to 
be bound by it, and their names were upon the call without their 
consent. Although not personally present, I am assured that at 
no time were there members enough present in the caucus to elect 
Mr. Mitchell Senator, which goes to bear out the assertions that 
were made by those members who claimed that their names were 
appended to this call without their consent. It is certain they 
did not participate in the caucus, did not go into the joint con¬ 
vention, and refrained from having any connection with the 
movement to bring about a Senatorial election. 

I do not want to take up any more of the time of the Senate in 
discussing this matter, but I thought I ought to say this much in 
answer to the Senator from Montana. 

Mr. HOAR. I should like to say one word, suggested by what 
has been said by the honorable Senator from Oregon. He agrees 
that but for the single precedent of the Corbett case the Senate 
ought to follow the clear, plain purpose, as it seems to him and as 
it seems to me, of the Constitution, which would give to it an in¬ 
terpretation to the effect that whenever there is a vacancy in a 
recess of the legislature the governor may fill it. 

Mr. BURROWS. I am sure the Senator from Massachusetts 
did not hear what the Senator from Oregon said. 

Mr. HOAR. I did. 

Mr. BURROWS. That the precedents for seventy-five years 
had established it in a certain way. 

Mr. HOAR. I did, and I asked the Senator whether I under¬ 
stood him to say, what he very clearly said, that but for the Cor¬ 
bett precedent alone the Senator would have voted, if he had been 
here, for Corbett. If he had been the Oregon Senator on that day 
he would, if I understand him correctly, have voted for Mr. Cor¬ 
bett. But now the precedent the other way constrains him. 

Now, what I wish to suggest to the Senator and to the Senate 
is this: How is it possible "that he can know on what grounds the 
Senate voted in the Corbett case; whether they voted on the ground 
that the Constitution meant so and so, or whether they voted on 
the ground stated in the debate now by the Senator from Montana 
and"stated in debate then at least by one other Senator in the Cor¬ 
bett case and stated in private by other Senators, as everybody 
who was here knows? The idea that a great wrong had been done 
to Senator Mitchell and to the Oregon legislature was circulated 
most industriously through the Senate. It is not like the judg¬ 
ment of a court, where the court states its grounds, and it does 
not seem to me that anybody can tell whether the judgment of 
the Senate was put on one ground or on the other. 

I believe as religiously as I believe anything in the world that 
if the question had come of the reappointment under such cir¬ 
cumstances at that time of some esteemed and popular Senator 
like the late Senator from Vermont or the present Senator from 
Vermont or my honorable friend from Wisconsin, he would have 
been seated by a large majority on that day. I do not think any¬ 
one who remembers the history of that time will question it. So 

4178 


it does not seem to me that that vote is a vote of binding force. 
Senators who voted just the other way in the three other cases and 
in the New Hampshire cases voted that way. 

Now, in regard to the previous precedents, it is true that there 
is no case which has gone on all fours with this, where a Senator 
has been seated; but it is also true that a large number of our 
precedents, the New Hampshire cases and a half a dozen of the 
earlier cases, overthrow the argument that a governor can not 
appoint unless a vacancy happen and begin in the recess: and the 
whole argument substantially of this case now is put on the ground 
of denying the doctrine on which a large portion of the old prece¬ 
dents go. 

Mr. GALLESTGER. Will the Senator permit me? 

Mr. HOAR. Let me finish the sentence; then 1 will yield to 
the Senator. So the question is here now and will remain until 
it is finally disposed of one way or the other. Is the Senator from 
Oregon right when he says they meant to provide a means of fill¬ 
ing all vacancies by letting the legislature do it when they are in 
session and the governor do it when they are not in session, or did 
they go into these thousand numerous refinements? Why, just 
see to what refinements our honorable friends are driven when 
they are talking about these precedents. 

Here is the Sevier case. Now, the vacancy occurred when the 
Arkansas legislature was in session, and the governor filled it, the 
Arkansas legislature, however, not having heard of the vacancy 
before they adjourned. 

My friends say, “Oh. well, the Constitution means that if the 
legislature have not had a chance to fill it the governor may ap¬ 
point.” But that is not what the Constitution says. It says if 
a vacancy happen during the recess. Now, if that means if a 
vacancy happens to begin during the recess, the Arkansas appoint¬ 
ment, the appointment where the legislature did not have a chance 
to elect, is just as much a violation of the Constitution as any 
other. If it means, as we say on our side, if a vacancy exists dur¬ 
ing the recess, however it may have begun, then the Arkansas case 
was rightly decided. 

The Arkansas case in any view of it overthrows the doctrine of 
the gentlemen who now resist Mr. Quay's right to a seat, because 
the vacancy did not begin during the recess, whether the legisla¬ 
ture had heard of it or had a chance to fill it or not, and therefore 
the whole argument about happening, the whole argument of hap¬ 
pening at the beginning instead of the middle, is gone. Now I 
will yield to my honorable friend. 

h * * * * * * 

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts 
is correct in his assumption that if I had been a member of the 
Senate when Senator Corbett appeared here with his credentials 
from the governor of Oregon I would have voted to seat him. The 
Oregon case was a very peculiar case. It is sui generis. There 
is not another case of its kind on record. Here was a case where 
the legislature had failed to organize, and there had been no oppor¬ 
tunity for the constitutional authority of the State to fill that 
vacancy. By what authority can it be contended that the State 
should be blamed and deprived of its representation in the Senate 
if its agent fails to perform a duty that is required of it by the 
Constitution? I think the Oregon "case is entirely a different case 
4178 


15 


and a very much stronger case for the seating of a governor's 
appointee than any of the other cases that have been submitted 
to the consideration of the Senate. 

For seventy-five years, as the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. 
Turley] has shown to the Senate, the Senate has refused to seat 
the appointee of a governor when the legislature had had an op- 
portunity to elect and faded to do so. I should have been bound 
to follow that precedent, and I should have refused to vote to seat 
anyone other than in the Corbett case, because I should have fol¬ 
lowed the unbroken line of precedents. The Corbett case stands 
upon a different footing from any of the others. I do not believe 
that there should be one law for the North and another for the 
South. I do not believe that there should be one law for the State 
of Montana or the State of Delaware or the State of Oregon and 
another for the State of Pennsylvania. I think the same rule 
ought to apply in every State, and if the Senate has determined, 
during this long period of time, that the Constitution ought to be 
construed in this manner, that the appointee of a governor shall 
not be seated if the legislature has had an opportunity to fill the 
vacancy, then, whether that contention is right or wrong, it is 
better to follow that conclusion and to follow that line of decision 
than to change it now at the solicitation of anyone, no matter 
how anxious we may be to serve him. If we change it now and 
seat the appointee from Pennsylvania, how long will that rule 
continue? How soon will there be a change again? 

The reason why I should have voted to seat Senator Corbett is 
because the legislature had had no opportunity to elect, and for 
the further reason that the legislature was not in session, not only 
had no opportunity to elect, but had never organized, and had 
never been in a position where it could conform to the constitu¬ 
tional requirements in electing a Senator. 

4178 


O 



1 








w; 






* 







I 





